> I had private discussions with Freescale guys, where they *explicitly*
> told me that e600 + altivec was considered dead inside the company,
> LONG before it became publicly known elsewhere. Have you seen such
> an announcement from Freescale? No and you won't because it's bad
> publicity for such a company because they still sell this stuff.

Fine, but where exactly is the analogy to you claims about Cell R&D? Did you have private discussions with IBM or Toshiba guys, where they *explicitly* told you that Cell was considered dead inside the companies? If so, then be frank about that. I won't dispute that. Giving private discussions with people who should know as source of your claims is better than giving no source at all, like you did with your Cell claim.

> I also had private discussions with financial folks [...], where
> they said that with the current situation with Sony/Toshiba, Cell's
> future is unclear.

I guess these financial folks are from outside IBM and Toshiba, so it's just opinion by their side. And "unclear future" isn't exactly the same as "stopped R&D". So it's obvious where your claim did *not* come from, at least.

> I'm definitely not going to provide "references of appropriate
> statements" from any such private discussion.

You referenced private discussion. That's sufficient. I didn't ask for more. You made very well clear that they never told you that "Cell R&D has stopped".

> go ahead and nitpick my choice of words (most of your replies are
> around this anyway)

...says the one who argued that "we could do a much better conversation if instead of "source?" [I] said "hey, why do you say that?" or "what makes you say that?" or whatever". Very funny.
My replies are not about your choice of words, but about your factual claims being false (or unproven at best).

> As for the PowerXCell 32, dunno if you've ever seen the Cell roadmap

Of yourse I have. Or where do you think I know this CPU from?

> used to be found here, but not anymore, surprise?

It's still there, surprise:

http://www-05.ibm.com/hu/news/events/2007/bladenap/pdf/Hofstee_Cell.pdf (page 16 dating 08/06, page 17 dating 04/07, document dating 11/07)
http://www-06.ibm.com/itsolutions/jp/deepcomputing/events/pdf/ibm.pdf (page 10 dating 03/08)
http://www-03.ibm.com/technology/resources/technology_cell_pdf_Cell_computing_platform.pdf (page 17 dating 05/08)
http://www-05.ibm.com/no/news/events/lsu2008/pdf/cell_overview.pdf (pages 15/16 dating 11/08)

> it should be around available at 2010 (the roadmap was from 2006)
> but the PS4 is due out in 2012? 2 years delay, when PS3/original
> Cell release was almost simultaneous? Strange?

No, not at all. As I told you numerous times already, the PowerXCell 32 isn't supposed to have anything to do with PS4 and never was. This alleged connection exists only within your twisted mind.

> I like my PS3 and the Cell and it would be fun to play with
> something more powerful, but I somehow think it will take quite
> longer than expected, if at all.

What about the already mentioned PowerXCell 8i then? It's more powerful than the Cell B.E. and it's out for quite some time already. Too expensive you say? Then forget the PowerXCell 32 instantly.

> in regard to the other CPUs you mentioned, I actually don't see
> anything other than embedded CPUs.

Yes, quite like the QorIQ you mentioned yourself.

> They're great really for their purpose [...] but they're not much
> use for a desktop or even a netbook.

I know. No need to educate me on this.

> I stated (amongst other) that e600 (the de-facto desktop-oriented
> CPU line, at least so far)

Dont't forget the PPC970 :-)

> is dead, and we're left with just server and embedded lines (QorIQ
> is just the most powerful, I don't really care for the rest, which
> are many, because they're embedded-only and too low-power).

Don't try to take me for fool. Why not simply saying "only server and embedded lines" when you mean "only server and embedded lines"? Instead, you claimed there would be "only QorIQ and Power7" (the latter one being no problem as POWER is the only server CPU family within Power Architecture and POWER7 being the upcoming member) in plain denial of the existance of the many other embedded lines within Power Architecture which are supposed to get further developed. Do you wonder yet why your ridiculous claim got challenged?
And for your argument why you're caring or not: the POWER7 is not suited for desktop applications either, yet you mentioned it.

> what *new* CPU (-based system, ok) could an average powerpc fan
> choose? None.

Right. I never disputed that.

> Which was *exactly* my original point, which you still seem to miss.

No, it's not that I missed it. It's just that I didn't address it, which *you* still seem to miss. In order to avoid any misunderstandings I even quoted the exact statements of yours I was addressing, which you seem to have missed as well.